2 ms·

I wonder how many people actually believe this is for the kids and not for population control. The bad people can use encrypted services just like they use gun

by Frannky 11mo ago

I wonder how many people actually believe this is for the kids and not for population control. The bad people can use encrypted services just like they use guns, even if they are illegal. But then there's a spike in arrests for posting on social media if people express opinions or content contrary to preferred narratives. Fortunately, there are people exposing NGO money flows and who favors them.Fortunately, the US keeps free speech sacred. I'm immensely grateful to the founding fathers and their ability to come up with something so helpful so many years down the line

WarOnPrivacy 11mo ago
> I wonder how many people actually believe this is for the kids and not for population control. For most of my life, news orgs have been treating national IC/LEO as if they have a history of truth-telling. Whenever a press conference comes up, journalists/editors reliably forget that they've never been told a meaningful truth in one of these. If the people's who's job it is to highlight the lies of the powerful - usually don't, what hope is there for the proletariat?
plundgren 11mo ago
Look, chat control is obviously a mental proposal ä. But the sitting president bans journalists who does not write what he says they have to. How is that keeping free speech sacred?
- Frannky 11mo ago
  To me, free speech in the US is sacred because there is a set of rules that shields citizens from being imprisoned simply for expressing their thoughts—otherwise, a huge swath of Bluesky users would already be behind bars... Can you speak freely in Russia, China, the UK, and beyond like you do in the US? How many people are incarcerated in each of those countries just for saying stuff vs. in the US? As for the president, you can't control him from pulling every lever to push his agenda, but at least the system allows for accountability. In the meantime, you can tell as many people as possible what's going on, so that when voters vote again, they can be made aware of contrary information. It's not a perfect system, but I think it's way better than exposing people to the risk of a crooked elite infiltrating the propaganda and censorship layer and making it impossible for contrary ideas to be shared.

by Frannky 11mo ago

WarOnPrivacy 11mo ago

> I wonder how many people actually believe this is for the kids and not for population control. For most of my life, news orgs have been treating national IC/LEO as if they have a history of truth-telling. Whenever a press conference comes up, journalists/editors reliably forget that they've never been told a meaningful truth in one of these. If the people's who's job it is to highlight the lies of the powerful - usually don't, what hope is there for the proletariat?

plundgren 11mo ago

Look, chat control is obviously a mental proposal ä. But the sitting president bans journalists who does not write what he says they have to. How is that keeping free speech sacred?

Frannky 11mo ago
To me, free speech in the US is sacred because there is a set of rules that shields citizens from being imprisoned simply for expressing their thoughts—otherwise, a huge swath of Bluesky users would already be behind bars... Can you speak freely in Russia, China, the UK, and beyond like you do in the US? How many people are incarcerated in each of those countries just for saying stuff vs. in the US? As for the president, you can't control him from pulling every lever to push his agenda, but at least the system allows for accountability. In the meantime, you can tell as many people as possible what's going on, so that when voters vote again, they can be made aware of contrary information. It's not a perfect system, but I think it's way better than exposing people to the risk of a crooked elite infiltrating the propaganda and censorship layer and making it impossible for contrary ideas to be shared.